get_job_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one significant behavioral trait — the call is non-blocking and safe to invoke during a long solve — plus that status is "persistent." It does not address permissions, error behavior, or what happens for an unknown/expired job id, leaving real gaps for a no-annotation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One tightly constructed sentence with the resource (stage status/diagnostics) and the key constraint (non-blocking) front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully names the returned categories (stage status, recent FEKO diagnostics) and the non-blocking behavior, which is enough for a simple status probe. It nonetheless leaves the job_id contract and error/expiry behavior unaddressed, so it is only minimally complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required job_id parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It never clarifies job_id format, source, or whether it must refer to an already-started job, adding no meaning beyond the bare schema field name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: reading stage status and FEKO diagnostics. A domain-aware agent can distinguish this from siblings like start_solver or run_post_script. It does not explicitly name an alternative it might be confused with, but the purpose is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"without blocking a long solve" implies the tool is meant to be polled while a solve runs, which is useful implied usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., get_artifacts or read_result_text) and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.